Dear "unelected" Premier Davis,
I am writing this open letter to see if you are listening to the very loud and numerous voices of the people from all political stripes. If you are listening - I imagine you are hearing the following:
1. Premier Davis must fire Judy Manning
2. Premier Davis must call a Judicial Inquiry into HVP affair
3. Premier Davis must get to the election by February
Now let's see if it's Party of the people or if it's Party of the entitled.
Let's see if you "unelected" Premier Paul Davis are going to be accountable and transparent.
Let's see if you "unelected" Premier Paul Davis are going to listen to the people.
It's never been a communication problem - it's never been Kathy's fault. It's always been the policy choices, patronage and cronyism, arrogance and entitlement.
"With Respect"
Sue
PS - have you heard the very clear voice of Former Tory Premier Tom Rideout?
I have the audio attached for your convenience.
PRESS HERE CBC NL Central Morning Show
Showing posts with label nick mcgrath. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nick mcgrath. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 01, 2014
Friday, June 20, 2014
PC Party spending taxpayer $$$?
Let's review the situation we have had and continue to have with the PC Party and its leadership.
1. Kathy Dunderdale quits.
2. Marshall named interim Premier.
3. PC leadership rules and process announced.
4. Three candidates qualified to run.
5. One is thrown out (Tommy Williams and party exec) - a second bows out due to process (Danny Williams condemns him) - one candidate remaining.
6. Candidate remaining was involved (guarantor) with a company that was released from its bond obligation.
7. Auditor General called in to review the HVP contract circumstances.
8. Frank Coleman - Premier in-waiting admits he had personal guarantees attached to the bond.
9. Minister Nick McGrath attempts some sort of explanation regarding the bond/s.
10. Bonding experts claim Minister did not know what he was talking about.
11. Premier Tom Marshall fires most of Office of the Premier staff.
12. Premier Tom Marshall hires staff for the Office of not-yet Premier Frank Coleman.
13. Province admits road left by HVP will now cost 1.5 million dollars more.
14. This would not have been the case if the bond was not released.
13. Premier designate Frank Coleman - prior to actually taking office - quits.
14. PC Party starts over to find a new leader - and a Premier.
The Tories celebrated their new House of Assembly Act in 2004. This great new democratic tool to ensure everybody had some expectation of a regularly called election on a fixed date. They insured that if a Premier quit too early - then an election could be called earlier - so as to give the people a say in the new leadership and direction of the government.
Who talked to Frank Coleman and encouraged him to run? He came out of the blue and certainly did not appear prepared for or really that interested in politics. We should assume Mr. Coleman had some idea before he decided to run that his business HVP would be released from a bond - in which he was a personal guarantor. Is this enough to make somebody run?
What would be the value to the Tories? Well it certainly has delayed the call of an election - and they are in losing poll territory. However - if Mr. Coleman stayed - they would not get the same delay. They have bought themselves another 3 months. Many people speculated the fix was in for Frank - so it is more than coincidence that there was no contest - for if there were - we would still have a leader and an election could be called.
It has now become a conspiracy theory that all this is innocent. Any thinking - inquiring - mind would have to be cynical.
It is time the Opposition Parties demanded an election - visited the Lieutenant Governor and dealt with the obvious manipulations by the PC Party.
The PC Party is not the government. The PC Party and its representatives like Tom Marshall - should not be spending money for a Premier not yet in office. The PC Party should not be able to control through slight of hand the laws of this province.
The only way not to smell a rat - is if you have a tightly squeezing partisan clothespins on your nose.
Has it become so bad here that the most stinky of events - seems normal?
1. Kathy Dunderdale quits.
2. Marshall named interim Premier.
3. PC leadership rules and process announced.
4. Three candidates qualified to run.
5. One is thrown out (Tommy Williams and party exec) - a second bows out due to process (Danny Williams condemns him) - one candidate remaining.
6. Candidate remaining was involved (guarantor) with a company that was released from its bond obligation.
7. Auditor General called in to review the HVP contract circumstances.
8. Frank Coleman - Premier in-waiting admits he had personal guarantees attached to the bond.
9. Minister Nick McGrath attempts some sort of explanation regarding the bond/s.
10. Bonding experts claim Minister did not know what he was talking about.
11. Premier Tom Marshall fires most of Office of the Premier staff.
12. Premier Tom Marshall hires staff for the Office of not-yet Premier Frank Coleman.
13. Province admits road left by HVP will now cost 1.5 million dollars more.
14. This would not have been the case if the bond was not released.
13. Premier designate Frank Coleman - prior to actually taking office - quits.
14. PC Party starts over to find a new leader - and a Premier.
The Tories celebrated their new House of Assembly Act in 2004. This great new democratic tool to ensure everybody had some expectation of a regularly called election on a fixed date. They insured that if a Premier quit too early - then an election could be called earlier - so as to give the people a say in the new leadership and direction of the government.
Who talked to Frank Coleman and encouraged him to run? He came out of the blue and certainly did not appear prepared for or really that interested in politics. We should assume Mr. Coleman had some idea before he decided to run that his business HVP would be released from a bond - in which he was a personal guarantor. Is this enough to make somebody run?
What would be the value to the Tories? Well it certainly has delayed the call of an election - and they are in losing poll territory. However - if Mr. Coleman stayed - they would not get the same delay. They have bought themselves another 3 months. Many people speculated the fix was in for Frank - so it is more than coincidence that there was no contest - for if there were - we would still have a leader and an election could be called.
It has now become a conspiracy theory that all this is innocent. Any thinking - inquiring - mind would have to be cynical.
It is time the Opposition Parties demanded an election - visited the Lieutenant Governor and dealt with the obvious manipulations by the PC Party.
The PC Party is not the government. The PC Party and its representatives like Tom Marshall - should not be spending money for a Premier not yet in office. The PC Party should not be able to control through slight of hand the laws of this province.
The only way not to smell a rat - is if you have a tightly squeezing partisan clothespins on your nose.
Has it become so bad here that the most stinky of events - seems normal?
Thursday, May 08, 2014
Coleman can be Frank about personal benefit
The word of the week is "bonds" performance bonds and labour and material payment bonds.
If however we really want to know if Frank Coleman benefited directly from the government's cancelling of the contract we need to see the indemnification agreements.
Here's as simple as I can put it: In order to bid on contracts the company/contractor needs to supply a performance bond. This bond simply is to protect - in this case government - from default of or problems with completing the agreed to work under contract. In order for the company Humber Valley Paving to get a bond they must go to a surety company. The surety company then requires that indemnification agreements are signed by the principal (bidder) and possibly others - typically majority owners, their spouses, and in some cases assets of other companies owned by a majority owner.
We have not talked much about the indemnity agreement - rather we have focused on the bond. This is exactly what government and Minister McGrath would prefer and here's why. Just because Frank Coleman sold or transferred for a nominal fee his majority shares to other shareholders does not necessarily relinquish his obligations under an indemnification agreement. So in other words - Coleman may claim he can no longer speak for the company as he no longer holds shares but what Coleman is not saying is that he still may have been on the hook for losses should the bond have been called.
Now let's look at how Coleman may have directly benefited. The government says that the contract was not cancelled until after Frank Coleman relinquished his shares. While that part may be true - if the bond was called after Coleman divested of his interest in HVP - Frank Coleman still may have been an indemnifier for any losses resulting from the bond being called. This could be millions of dollars.
This is why this whole thing smells rotten - because ALL information is not forthcoming and they hide behind things like "I am no longer a shareholder" therefore cannot speak for the company. Okay then here are the questions for Frank Coleman.
1. Did you personally or any of your holdings other than HVP indemnify the surety for the performance bond?
2. Have you sold or divested of your other interests such as Coleman Foods - if not why not?
3. When an extension was sought by HVP - did you provide a letter from the surety regarding that extension. Were the appropriate emails, faxes, documents, provided to the surety?
Bottom line is this - unless we see the indemnification agreement for the bond - we cannot ascertain if Frank Coleman benefited from the government's decision to cancel the contract and not call the bond.
Further any indemnity agreements signed by Frank Coleman personally or by other entities where Frank Coleman has interests are really personal documents not documents of HVP. Our future Premier should have no problem releasing these.
None of this of course negates the fact that relatives of Frank Coleman benefitted.
If however we really want to know if Frank Coleman benefited directly from the government's cancelling of the contract we need to see the indemnification agreements.
Here's as simple as I can put it: In order to bid on contracts the company/contractor needs to supply a performance bond. This bond simply is to protect - in this case government - from default of or problems with completing the agreed to work under contract. In order for the company Humber Valley Paving to get a bond they must go to a surety company. The surety company then requires that indemnification agreements are signed by the principal (bidder) and possibly others - typically majority owners, their spouses, and in some cases assets of other companies owned by a majority owner.
We have not talked much about the indemnity agreement - rather we have focused on the bond. This is exactly what government and Minister McGrath would prefer and here's why. Just because Frank Coleman sold or transferred for a nominal fee his majority shares to other shareholders does not necessarily relinquish his obligations under an indemnification agreement. So in other words - Coleman may claim he can no longer speak for the company as he no longer holds shares but what Coleman is not saying is that he still may have been on the hook for losses should the bond have been called.
Now let's look at how Coleman may have directly benefited. The government says that the contract was not cancelled until after Frank Coleman relinquished his shares. While that part may be true - if the bond was called after Coleman divested of his interest in HVP - Frank Coleman still may have been an indemnifier for any losses resulting from the bond being called. This could be millions of dollars.
This is why this whole thing smells rotten - because ALL information is not forthcoming and they hide behind things like "I am no longer a shareholder" therefore cannot speak for the company. Okay then here are the questions for Frank Coleman.
1. Did you personally or any of your holdings other than HVP indemnify the surety for the performance bond?
2. Have you sold or divested of your other interests such as Coleman Foods - if not why not?
3. When an extension was sought by HVP - did you provide a letter from the surety regarding that extension. Were the appropriate emails, faxes, documents, provided to the surety?
Bottom line is this - unless we see the indemnification agreement for the bond - we cannot ascertain if Frank Coleman benefited from the government's decision to cancel the contract and not call the bond.
Further any indemnity agreements signed by Frank Coleman personally or by other entities where Frank Coleman has interests are really personal documents not documents of HVP. Our future Premier should have no problem releasing these.
None of this of course negates the fact that relatives of Frank Coleman benefitted.
Wednesday, May 07, 2014
Coleman proves - not ready to be Premier
Let's put all partisanship aside. Let's simply examine Mr. Coleman based on performance to date.
Here are the signs to me - as a voter - that Frank Coleman is not ready to be Premier.
1. He believes that the Tory's have done a good job to date. This means he is offside right from the get-go with the majority of people in Newfoundland and Labrador.
2. Pro-Choice Pro-Life positioning in that he does not acknowledge that by participating in anti-abortion rallies - he does hope to influence legislative powers to make changes.
3. Response to the Humber Valley Paving controversy.
4. His limited and controlled accessibility to the media.
The most pressing concern right now for Mr. Coleman, the government, and the people is the cancelled contract for road development and paving between the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and Humber Valley Paving. There is no question that timing for both Mr. Coleman's entry into the Tory leadership race and HVP being let out of contractual obligations to the government (the people of NL) is at best unfortunate and coincidental or at worst deliberate and not usual.
Mr. Coleman must recognize the concerns the people have with this and understand their reasons for that concern. Mr. Coleman does know that he is becoming an unelected Premier, both at the Party level and through general election under his leadership. Mr. Coleman had a golden opportunity to demonstrate his leadership prowess and interest by simply acknowledging the concerns of ordinary people and the questions by the media - by publicly calling on the government he wants to lead to call in the Auditor General to clear the air. He did not have to comment about a company he used to own - he simply had to recommend that a third - independent party - review the situation. In this way he would have shown some respect for the people he hopes to lead. In this way he would clear the air of an environment that has been secret and unaccountable.
Mr. Coleman must know that this whole situation looks unusual and also appears to be politically privileged. This was not the time to avoid, hide, or limit communications - this was a time to demonstrate societal leadership not a time to protect private business interests.
Frank Coleman failed to do this and as such demonstrated his leadership style. I believe the people of Newfoundland and Labrador through continued polling results have said - we are not interested in this type of leadership or government.
Here are the signs to me - as a voter - that Frank Coleman is not ready to be Premier.
1. He believes that the Tory's have done a good job to date. This means he is offside right from the get-go with the majority of people in Newfoundland and Labrador.
2. Pro-Choice Pro-Life positioning in that he does not acknowledge that by participating in anti-abortion rallies - he does hope to influence legislative powers to make changes.
3. Response to the Humber Valley Paving controversy.
4. His limited and controlled accessibility to the media.
The most pressing concern right now for Mr. Coleman, the government, and the people is the cancelled contract for road development and paving between the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and Humber Valley Paving. There is no question that timing for both Mr. Coleman's entry into the Tory leadership race and HVP being let out of contractual obligations to the government (the people of NL) is at best unfortunate and coincidental or at worst deliberate and not usual.
Mr. Coleman must recognize the concerns the people have with this and understand their reasons for that concern. Mr. Coleman does know that he is becoming an unelected Premier, both at the Party level and through general election under his leadership. Mr. Coleman had a golden opportunity to demonstrate his leadership prowess and interest by simply acknowledging the concerns of ordinary people and the questions by the media - by publicly calling on the government he wants to lead to call in the Auditor General to clear the air. He did not have to comment about a company he used to own - he simply had to recommend that a third - independent party - review the situation. In this way he would have shown some respect for the people he hopes to lead. In this way he would clear the air of an environment that has been secret and unaccountable.
Mr. Coleman must know that this whole situation looks unusual and also appears to be politically privileged. This was not the time to avoid, hide, or limit communications - this was a time to demonstrate societal leadership not a time to protect private business interests.
Frank Coleman failed to do this and as such demonstrated his leadership style. I believe the people of Newfoundland and Labrador through continued polling results have said - we are not interested in this type of leadership or government.
Tuesday, May 06, 2014
Commissioner of Lobbyists reviewing HVP activities?
Based on what Minister McGrath has been saying relative to discussions with Gene Coleman and other officials of Humber Valley Paving one would expect the Lobbyists Registration Act to be in play here.
Do the "negotiations" "discussions" talked about by Minister McGrath pertaining to Humber Valley Paving and the release of bonds constitute lobbying?
Subparagraph 2(1)(c)(xvi) of the Lobbyist Registration Act:
Based on what the Minister has said - I would consider the activities lobbying.
(c) "lobby " means to communicate with a public-office holder for remuneration or other gain, reward or benefit, in an attempt to influence
(xvi) public-office holders relating to the terms of a contract, the choice of a contractor, or the administration, implementation or enforcement of a contract...
Based on the importance to the company over the three month period wherein discussions - negotiations were taking place - one might need to review whether or not Gene Coleman was an in-house lobbyist for that period.
I see no such registration under the registry - so has the Commissioner of Lobbyists been asked to review this situation?
Do the "negotiations" "discussions" talked about by Minister McGrath pertaining to Humber Valley Paving and the release of bonds constitute lobbying?
Subparagraph 2(1)(c)(xvi) of the Lobbyist Registration Act:
Based on what the Minister has said - I would consider the activities lobbying.
(c) "lobby " means to communicate with a public-office holder for remuneration or other gain, reward or benefit, in an attempt to influence
(xvi) public-office holders relating to the terms of a contract, the choice of a contractor, or the administration, implementation or enforcement of a contract...
Based on the importance to the company over the three month period wherein discussions - negotiations were taking place - one might need to review whether or not Gene Coleman was an in-house lobbyist for that period.
In-house lobbyist
6.
(1)
In this section,
(a)
"employee
" includes an officer who is compensated for the performance of his or her duties;
(b)
"in-house
lobbyist" means a person who is employed by an organization
(i)
20% of whose duties as an employee, as assessed in a 3 month period, are to lobby on behalf of that organization, or
(ii)
a part of whose duties as an employee is to lobby on behalf of that
organization if the employee's duties to lobby together with the duties
of other employees to lobby would constitute 20 % of time at work of one
full time employee, assessed in a 3 month period, were those duties to
lobby to be performed by only one employee; and
(c)
"senior
officer" means the most senior officer of the organization who is compensated for the performance of his or her duties.
(2)
The senior officer of an organization which employs an in-house lobbyist shall file a return with the registrar
(a)
within
10 days after the day on which that person becomes an in-house lobbyist; and
(b)
within
30 days after the expiration of each 6 month period after the date of filing the previous return.
I see no such registration under the registry - so has the Commissioner of Lobbyists been asked to review this situation?
Arms Length hmm
I was just reading part of a Canada Revenue Agency Document - that's interesting. Wonder what definition a court would use?
Example 1
A has two adult children, C and D. C has two children, X and Y, and D has one child, Z. A owns all of the issued and outstanding shares of Aco, consequently, A controls Aco. Each of Y and Z owns 50% of the common shares of Opco. Since Y and Z are cousins, they will, for purposes of the Act,
be an unrelated group that controls Opco. As A is related to each of Y and Z (i.e. A is their grandparent), Aco and Opco will be related pursuant to subparagraph 251(2)(c)(iv)
Corporations and Other Persons
11.Paragraphs 251(2)(b) and (c) set out the statutory rules for determining when a corporation and another person will be considered to be “related persons” (or persons related to each other) for purposes of the Act. Under paragraph 251(2)(b), a corporation will be related to another person
(including another corporation) where:
(a) that person controls the corporation;
(b) that person is a member of a related group that controls
the corporation; or
(c) that person is a person who is related to a person
described in (a) or (b) above.
In addition, paragraph 251(2)(c) provides that two
corporations will be related if:
(i) the two corporations are controlled by the same
person or group of persons;
(ii) each of the corporations is controlled by one
person and the person who controls one
corporation is related to the person who controls
the other corporation;
(iii) one of the corporations is controlled by one
person and that person is related to any member
of a related group that controls the other
corporation;
(iv) one of the corporations is controlled by one
person and that person is related to each member
Monday, May 05, 2014
Tories avoid paper trail on Coleman/Humber Valley Paving affair?
The House of Assembly revealed something very scary today.
As we all might have anticipated the HOA question period was filled with inquiry over the Coleman affair.
I await the Hansard - in order to demonstrate how many times Minister McGrath used the word verbal when explaining the process of determining the release from Contract of Humber Valley Paving.
There was apparently verbal communication between the Minister and Premier on this subject. There were all kinds of verbal communications between the Minister and representatives of the company. The only thing I heard that might have been in writing is the document that released Humber Valley Paving from the contract and any consequence of bond.
This was a multi-million dollar contract between government and Humber Valley Paving and it was with a company where Frank Coleman (the incoming Premier) was CEO and majority shareholder. The discussions - as they were mostly verbal - will not give us real time frames and will not confirm or deny that these discussions were being held at a time Frank Coleman may have been looking at a run for the leadership of the Tories.
These very important details seem to have no written back-up. I remember a time not so long ago - where Ministers were not taking briefing notes - they were being briefed verbally. Here we go again.
Of course this stinks - because the company was apparently sold and could have been in a real unsaleable state had the bond been tested. This going on at a time just prior to Frank Coleman announcing his candidacy for the Tories and via our system the keys to the Premier's Office.
Oh yes this needs to be investigated. The sooner the better. What options do we have now to prevent such negotiations going on verbally - leaving us - the people, the taxpayer, their boss - without any paper trail?
As we all might have anticipated the HOA question period was filled with inquiry over the Coleman affair.
I await the Hansard - in order to demonstrate how many times Minister McGrath used the word verbal when explaining the process of determining the release from Contract of Humber Valley Paving.
There was apparently verbal communication between the Minister and Premier on this subject. There were all kinds of verbal communications between the Minister and representatives of the company. The only thing I heard that might have been in writing is the document that released Humber Valley Paving from the contract and any consequence of bond.
This was a multi-million dollar contract between government and Humber Valley Paving and it was with a company where Frank Coleman (the incoming Premier) was CEO and majority shareholder. The discussions - as they were mostly verbal - will not give us real time frames and will not confirm or deny that these discussions were being held at a time Frank Coleman may have been looking at a run for the leadership of the Tories.
These very important details seem to have no written back-up. I remember a time not so long ago - where Ministers were not taking briefing notes - they were being briefed verbally. Here we go again.
Of course this stinks - because the company was apparently sold and could have been in a real unsaleable state had the bond been tested. This going on at a time just prior to Frank Coleman announcing his candidacy for the Tories and via our system the keys to the Premier's Office.
Oh yes this needs to be investigated. The sooner the better. What options do we have now to prevent such negotiations going on verbally - leaving us - the people, the taxpayer, their boss - without any paper trail?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)